<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 4:46 AM, Fred Jones <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:fredthejonester@gmail.com">fredthejonester@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">
> In the case of the two sites I mentioned, it won't be easy. It probably will<br>
> be several days of work for each one. I'm committed to doing it because I'd<br>
> rather lose that time than lose my reputation as a trustworthy provider of<br>
> secure, reliable, and expandable Web 2.0 technology. It doesn't matter if<br>
> it's easy or not; it's the right thing to do.<br>
<br>
</div>Why is it the right thing to do? I am not arguing--just asking,<br>
because I really don't know. If a D5 site is running perfectly and has<br>
all the functionality required and it has all security updates, what<br>
is the reason to upgrade it?<br>
</blockquote></div><br>This is so right on.<br>And this position is not against the most rapid progress and growth for Drupal itself. That can progress on its own track and for new projects, take the latest and greatest stable package, of course.<br>
But once you have used the best tool for the job and it ain't broken, don't fix it.<br>Let's reject the maniatic planned obsolescence the system shoves down our throats all the time! Alice is running just to stay in the same place.<br>
<br>Victor Kane<br><a href="http://awebfactory.com.ar">http://awebfactory.com.ar</a><br><a href="http://projectflowandtracker.com">http://projectflowandtracker.com</a><br>